There are two sides to every
story, and two sides to each
bill you consider in the legislature.

On the one hand, you have
heard emotional testimony
from fathers removed from
their childrens' lives by
court order. You have
heard their stories of biased
judges, activist judges, who
disregard laws and constitutions
and the principles of justice
and fairness in order to further
a sexist agenda. The
testimony of fathers, crying
out for the right, guaranteed
under the federal constitution,
to be parents to their children,
was supported by expert testimony,
as well as objective research,
testifying to the importance
of the father-child relationship.
Mothers, sisters, grandmothers
have appeared before you to
add credence to the research
and emotional appeals of the
displaced fathers. There seems
little doubt that children
need their fathers, and that
their best interests indicate
a need for a close, continuing
contact between them.

On the other hand, you have
also heard from those who
profit from the court ordered
separation of fathers and
children. Agencies whose
income depends on court referrals,
counselors who's jobs might
be lost if such separations
were reduced. You've
heard from profiteers of the
domestic violence industry,
whose anti-male agenda would
leave you to believe that
every single father is abusive
and neglectful. They've
told you that shared custody
would prove dangerous to children.
You've heard the argument
that shared custody would
increase the acrimony between
parents, and therefore increase
the courts' workload due to
re-litigation. You've
heard testimony from custodial
mothers, and outright feminists,
decrying the loss of child
support payments if shared
custody were enacted.
All those arguments are also
emotional, but contrary to
the fathers' appeals, there
is no objective research to
support their arguments.

Your choice seems clear enough!
Parents who want to be real
parents to their children,
and the well-established need
of the children to enjoy the
benefits of having two closely
connected, concerned parents.

And the financial and political
desires of people and groups
whose selfishness and greed
have shown, for decades, to
be detrimental to the health,
safety, and psycho-social
well being of the children.

The latter were represented
by the Task Force on Family
Law, which wrote the bill
which HB 529 would amend.
This committee was lopsided
with divorce industry insiders
and profiteers. Recall
the testimony of one task
force member, that only one
week was spent debating shared
custody, but FOUR MONTHS on
the domestic violence provisions
of the bill. The final
draft of the bill was written
by one such, and approved
by a MINORITY of the task
force, WITHOUT A QUORUM!
Apparently, even in a group
packed by like-minded profiteers,
they feared opposition to
their anti-male, anti-shared
custody attitudes. In
truly tyrannical fashion,
they quashed an attempt to
allow a minority report to
be written and filed.
In opposing HB 529, they laced
their testimony with deceptive
and misleading statements.
Shared custody would be required
in ALL cases. NOT TRUE!
Shared custody would increase
re-litigation. JUST THE OPPOSITE!
Shared custody would endanger
children. PROVABLY FALSE!
Judges would be left with
no discretion. FALSE!
Shared custody would increase
acrimony between parents.
NOT SO! Shared custody
would be disruptive to the
children. HOW CAN RETAINING
THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH BOTH
PARENTS EQUALLY BE DISRUPTIVE?
ISN'T "PARENTECTOMY"
MORE DISRUPTIVE?

HB 529 would alter the Task
Force Bill with just two additional
phrasings. The first
is the REBUTTABLE presumption
that shared physical custody
is in the best interests of
the children. We think
the research proves that point.
Second, a requirement that
judges/marital masters who
do NOT order shared custody
present their reasons for
declining to do so in written
findings of fact. If
their reasons are valid, why
should they fear the need
to do so?

Here in New Hampshire, as
in all other states, we practice
a representative form of government.
That is, we elect people to
represent us in the legislature.

So, I remind you that in Massachusetts
recently, a non-binding referendum
resulted in 85 (+) % of voters
registering their support
of shared physical custody.
That seems like a clear enough
directive from the people
you represent (assuming no
difference would exist if
such a vote were put to the
people of NH) telling you
that they want you to decide
in favor of shared custody.
Therefore, we urge you to
vote HB 529 OUGHT TO PASS.
Respectfully, Paul M. Clements
DADD (Dads Against Divorce
Discrimination) NH